Talk:Bomis/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: — Cirt (talk)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, Seabuckthorn, feel free to take your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Request: Fate The infobox says (unsourced) that Bomis is defunct. However, I could not find any mention in the article of Bomis after 2005 (when Shell is CEO). When did the company stop trading and what was its ultimate fate? (liquidated? bankrupt? sold? dormant? inactive?) I guess there is at least one editor who can tell us without us paying for a business records search. This is relevant, but not crucial, to the "broad coverage" good article criterion. Could add someone a sourced sentence on the fate of Bomis? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Background section The history of Bomis is indeed much intertwined with that of Wikipedia and the life of JW. However, I feel that the background section, which contains significant amount of biographical material of JW, is probably in violation of WP:SUMMARY. I feel that there is no need to mention Jimmy's place of birth or even up to his PhD. Bearing in mind Jimmy has his own article, and that his childhood and education has no direct relevance to the Bomis project, I would suggest that much of this background section be deleted, and a brief description of JW's relationship with Davis and Shell's at the point of formation would probably suffice. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
2005 editing incident section The incident is arguably more about JW than Bomis, although the controversy that was whipped up was about Jimm's role in Bomis and how that was reflected in his WP biography (ie much more JW-centric than focussed on Bomis). However, today, the incident section takes up 265 words in his biography, which seems not too disproportionate to the length of bio of 4000 words. Yet, the editing incident section occupies 579 words, more both in word count and as a percentage of the Bomis article, which I feel is very much undue weight. I suggest that this be cut down to at least 20 percent below the length of the section in Jimmy's biography. If it were entirely up to me, I'd probably make that at least 50%. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
|
1: Well-written
- a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: Done
|
None
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)
Done
Check for WP:RS: Done
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license) & (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
As per the above checklist, the issues identified are :
The lead does not provide an accessible overview and does not give relative emphasis.The 2005 editing incident subsection should be removed. (WP:OFFTOPIC)1a issue: "Bomis was placed into a position where it needed to let go the majority of its employees to continue operating as Wikipedia with its new not-for-profit status was not producing revenues for the company." (I’m not sure )
This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 11:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks very much for the above suggestions, will respond to them soon. — Cirt (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, Seabuckthorn, I've gone through your recommendations point-by-point and modified the article accordingly. I added more to the WP:LEAD from areas you felt needed to be expanded upon, and trimmed content from the intro with respect to sections you thought should be reduced. With respect to the subsection you voiced concerns about, above, I removed a majority of its content. I also removed the content as a specific subsection itself. I then took relevant content and adjusted other subsections accordingly, as you recommended, above. Thanks very much for your helpful suggestions, the article looks better for it! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, Seabuckthorn, I've gone through your recommendations point-by-point and modified the article accordingly. I added more to the WP:LEAD from areas you felt needed to be expanded upon, and trimmed content from the intro with respect to sections you thought should be reduced. With respect to the subsection you voiced concerns about, above, I removed a majority of its content. I also removed the content as a specific subsection itself. I then took relevant content and adjusted other subsections accordingly, as you recommended, above. Thanks very much for your helpful suggestions, the article looks better for it! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)